IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (125) CWP No. 18732-2025 Date of Decision : 09.07.2025 Prahlad Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Anuj Balian, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

Harsimran Singh Sethi J. (Oral)

1. In the present writ petition, the challenge is to the order by ₹

which, a sum of 1,94,193/- has been deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner, which the petitioner was liable to pay as a penal rent for not vacating the government accommodation within the time frame of two months and the said government accommodation was retained beyond the entitlement.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred from Gurugram to Hisar on 07.05.2022 and as per the rules, a transferred employee can retain the accommodation for a period of two months and on expiry of two months, the petitioner submitted a letter of request annexed herein as Annexure P-1 for retaining the said accommodation, which was not accepted and the petitioner vacated the accommodation in October, 2022.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that at the ₹

time of the retirement of the petitioner, a sum of 1,94,193/- has been deducted from his retiral benefits as a penal rent for overstaying in the government accommodation beyond entitlement, which deduction has been made without giving any show cause notice to the petitioner and further without deciding upon the application filed by the petitioner for extension to retain the government accommodation.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

₹

5. The challenge to the recovery of 1,94,193/- is on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given before deducting the said amount from the retiral benefits. The reliance is being placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in CA No. 4759-60 of 1996 titled as Lakshmi Narayan Mukhopadhyay Vs. Union of India, decided on

20.02.2002.

6. In this regard, it may be noticed that it is a conceded position that the petitioner retained the government accommodation beyond his entitlement. As per the House Allotment Rules, in case an employee does not vacate the government accommodation within the stipulated time frame and retain the same, the penalty is to be put upon such employee as per the rules for not vacating the premises. As per the rules, the petitioner retained the government accommodation beyond 05.07.2022 and a penalty of ₹

1,94,193/- was imposed upon as per the House Allotment Rules for staying beyond the entitlement in the government accommodation at Gurugram.

7. The said amount has been deducted from the retiral benefits of the petitioner. Once, it is a conceded position that the petitioner had retained the government accommodation beyond his entitlement, the respondents were within the jurisdiction to apply the House Allotment Rules to impose the penalty and recover the same from the petitioner.

8. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, any liability which the government employee suffers during his/her service career, can be recovered from the retiral benefits. The reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2766-2767 of 2005 titled as Secretary O.N.G.C Limited and another vs. V.U Warrier, decided on 20.04.2005, wherein, in paragraphs 25 and 26, it has been held that the employer is entitled to effect recovery from the retiral benefits including the gratuity. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under:

“25. It is well settled that gratuity is earned by an employee for long and meritorious service rendered by him. Gratuity is not paid to the employee gratuitously or merely as a matter of boon. It is paid to him for the service rendered by him to the employer [vide Garment Cleaning Works v. Its Workmen, [1962] 1 SCR 711]. In Calcutta I